On 12 September 2012 19:00, Julian Andres Klode <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:13:15PM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote: >> I see where the support for this is in versionmatch.cc and the above >> seems to not work because PackageFile::Architecture is never >> populated. Actually, python-apt docs say this is normal:
> > You can only have those for Debian-style repositories with > dists/, you can not have this for flat repositories. Isn't that limitation also true of other details, such as component (“c=main”)? I don't see why not to include the architecture when it is available and unambiguous. > It does not work, probably because APT tries to pin aptitude:i386 to > a version with architecture: amd64, which does not exist. I'd go > with EXPRESSION:ARCHITECTURE pinning, like aptitude:amd64 or *:amd64, > or /regex/:amd64. But we don't appear to have implemented *:amd64 > correctly yet (with the same semantics as *, it is not considered > more generic than name:amd64). I don't know whether this is possible > though. True. I suppose this could be handled either way (both?) by considering “*:ARCH” more general as you suggest, or by having “b=ARCH” ignored for packages on other archs. Although I do not have much knowledge of versionmatch.cc it appears your suggestion is much easier to implement and also does not adjust the semantics of release pinning so much. Regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
